3 20-0228 Subject: Tenant Protection, Just Cause, & Rent Ordinance Amendments
From: City Attorney Parker, Councilmember Bas And Pro Tem Kalb
Recommendation: Adopt An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.22 Of The Oakland Municipal Code (Residential Rent Adjustments And Evictions) To (1) Limit The Maximum Rent Increase In Any One Year To Conform To State Law; (2) Make Failure To Pay Required Relocation Benefits An Affirmative Defense To Eviction; (3) Limit Late Fees; (4) Prohibit Unilaterally Imposed Changes To Terms Of Tenancy; (5) Add One-For-One Replacement Of Roommates To The Definition Of Housing Services; (6) Prohibit Eviction Based On Additional Occupants If Landlord Unreasonably Refused Tenant's Written Request To Add Occupant(S); And (7) Strengthen Tenants' Rights And Enforcement Of Tenants' Rights Under The Tenant Protection Ordinance [TITLE CHANGE]
I am an Oakland tenant. I would urge you to pass strong upgrades to Oakland's tenant protections on Monday. Now more than ever, it is imperative to protect tenants from abuse and harassment. We need to make sure the laws stop bad actors from displacing more tenants. However, I would request the following changes to the ordinance:
To be consistent with the recent passage by City Council of the “Fair Chance Ordinance,” ADD “the incarceration status of the tenant,” where not superseded by federal or state statutes."
Late Rent Payment Fee. In recognition of both state law and common practice, OTU proposes a uniform late fee of $25. 1% appears reasonable, and 3% is an excessive burden. OTU strongly urges a uniform late fee of $25 for all tenants.
To “Additional occupant,” ADD “adopted child” and “foster child” as standard occupants.
OTU suggests that no unnecessary burden is created on either party if the provision is reworded to state that “third-party rent payments received on behalf of a tenant does not create a claim to tenancy.”
I am a tenant in District 5 and I support these measures to protect tenants during this crisis. A moratorium is only worth so much if landlords can harass tenants out of their home. Big corporate landowners are buying up homes in Oakland and using loopholes in the original (very popular) tenant protection ordinance to push people (especially the elderly and disabled) out of their homes, like trumped up late fees and parking fees. With more and more Oaklanders losing housing or needing to move back in with friends and family, we also need these protections to make sure tenants can add new roommates to under-occupied units without fear of eviction. Noel Gallo, as my councilmember I am looking to you to take action now to protect the tenants in your district and keep Oakland healthy and housed! Otherwise, maybe we should be supporting someone else for City Council this November...
OTU supports the City Attorney's recommendations, and request the following "tweaks" are needed to cover a few remaining gaps,
Please incorporate these recommendations into the final wording of the modifications to assist in establishing equity and fairness for both tenants and owners.
Items 1, 5, 7, 9, & 10 are especially significant.
1. Tenants Right to Privacy. To be consistent with the recent passage by City Council of the “Fair Chance Ordinance,” ADD “the incarceration status of the tenant,” where not superseded by federal or state statutes."
5. Late Rent Payment Fee. In recognition of both state law and common practice, OTU proposes a uniform late fee of $25. 1% appears reasonable, and 3% is an excessive burden. OTU strongly urges a uniform late fee of $25 for all tenants.
7. Definitions. To “Additional occupant,” ADD “adopted child” and “foster child” as standard occupants.
9. For Non-Profit Developers: ADD a new number “2,” to reflect the concern of non-profit housing developers whose developments are prohibited from adding occupants in units that receive federal subsidies.
10. Rent Payments by a 3rd Party: OTU suggests that no unnecessary burden is created on either party if the provision is reworded to state that “third-party rent payments received on behalf of a tenant does not create a claim to tenancy.”
I am a tenant/counselor organizer here in Oakland and born and raised in Oakland/East Bay. I just want to bring to everyone’s attention the severity in tenant harassment cases on behalf of landlords at this time. Displacement and harassment have gone hand in hand for a long time now, but the ways in which landlords are rising to the occasion during this time of crisis is terrorizing. Tenants are having to choose between food and livelihood and rent, especially those who long before the crisis were already fighting to stay in Oakland, and I speak to that on a very personal level. I urge you to pass these amendments to take a step towards stabilizing our communities and keeping our working class Black and brown communities housed, safe, and healthy.
I am writing in support of adding stronger tenant protections for Oakland renters. This is not about having "a bad roommate" or limiting small landlords' ability to chose their tenants. This is about ensuring that everyone in Oakland has access to safe and affordable housing and recognizing that landlords have unparalleled power to decide who has access to stable housing and for how long. To equate the limitation of property owners' ability to profit from an investment with the ability of people to find stable and affordable housing is inhumane and a gross demonstration of our society's constant prioritization of property over humans. Oakland must pass these protections to ensure that everyone can live a life of dignity and autonomy, not just property owners.
My name is Cherri Murphy.
Social Justice Minister.
Live in D5.
We need City Officials to make hope real in an economic crisis. The “Right to Recall” legislation would ensure laid-off workers right to return to their jobs as the crisis subsides prioritizing those who have given the most years of service.
My name is Kate raven and I am an Oakland homeowner and lawyer in district 5_. I urge you to pass strong upgrades to Oakland’s tenant protections on Monday. I also support Oakland worker's right to recall. Now more than ever, it is imperative to protect tenants from abuse and harassment. We need to make sure the laws stop bad actors from displacing more tenants of color from Oakland.
Hello. My name is Kimi Lee. I am an Oakland homeowner in district 6. I urge you to pass strong upgrades to Oakland’s tenant protections. I also support Oakland worker's right to recall. Now more than ever, it is imperative to protect tenants from abuse and harassment. We need to make sure the laws stop bad actors from displacing more tenants of color from Oakland.
As a long-time district 1 tenant/resident I strongly encourage you to pass these amendments to strengthen the Tenant Protection Ordinance. Homes are meant to shelter people, not generate wealth. We are in the midst of a housing crisis that will only be made worse due to the current pandemic. Please put protection of people before protection of hoarded wealth. The chasm between wealthy landowners and the unhoused grows greater everyday. We must do everything in our power to close that gap. Protect tenants and help stop the continued displacement of long-time Oakland residents.
We oppose these monumental changes to the tenant/landlord relationship. My husband and I are seniors living in our duplex. Our tenants live in the upstairs unit. Losing the ability to select our tenants and the number of occupants living above us would be a crushing blow to us. Further, our long-term plan was to have a care-giver if/when needed move in upstairs. It is part of our safety net.
We urge you to protect equally Oakland small property landlords and not transfer the social problems we all are facing from tenants to small landlords.
Council and Committee members, landlords, tenants...yes, tenants too. Haven't we all had bad roommates in our pasts? Friend of a friend of a friend. You took a chance. You regretted it immediately. With this Ordinance Amendment, everyone loses except the bad roommate! You the tenant are affected as well as your landlord. Also, this "amendment" will make it SO easy for fraudulent types to work the system as usual, with no recourse to the landlord. Terrible, terrible idea.
Many families have come together during shelter in place. My own sister was fortunate enough to leave an abusive relationship with her children and move in with my parents. Many young people are moving back in with their parents and families are taking in their elders to protect & care for them. With unemployment skyrocketing, friends are moving in with friends, preserving affordable rent-controlled housing and stopping displacement. For many tenants, however, adding an additional occupant can mean an eviction. As families, chosen or bound by law or blood, endure and recover from this pandemic, they need to be able to live together without fear. I implore you, pass the tenant protection upgrades to help keep families in their homes.
Recognizing that many families, especially queer and families of color, my own included, are non-traditional, I ask that you remove the 5% additional occupancy fee. At minimum, please do not have it apply to anyone under the age of 18 in addition to foster, adopted or biological children of any age.
Please also cap rent fees at $25. A 3% late fee when the average rent is nearing 3k is absurd.
We need the strongest tenant protections possible in this moment. Please pass the upgrades in full with these amendments. Please also stand for Oakland workers and support the right to recall ordinance.
Oakland is already too limiting for everything, but to make it almost impossible for a small-time rental owner to make payments for mortgages, insurance, taxes (oh, let's not forget those!), interest and principal, in addition to maintenance, landscaping, utilities for common areas, garbage, water, and many other expenses tenants don't have to pay for but expect, the city's proposal for allowing additional non-paying tenants without owner/ landlord approval much less notice is unacceptable. It's unethical and borders on dictatorship. I heartily oppose the proposal of allowing additional tenants etc without prior approval by the landlord.
D6 homeowner and I strongly support these Tenant Protection Upgrades for my neighbors who have have be LONG terms tenants. Please support, vote yes here at CED and again at full council.
My name is Kari Napoli and I am a tenant and resident of District 1. I also work for a small business in District 1 that has been severely impacted by COVID. Tenants need support now more than ever. We, as tenants, are the small business owners and employees, we are the social workers, the teachers, the nurses, the bus drivers. WE serve our community with our work, our tax dollars, and our mutual aid. WE would be a massive loss for Oakland. Support the workers!
I am an Oakland tenant. I'm in support of these increased tenant protections. Before coronavirus/COVID-19, there was already a housing crisis. There are tenants willing to have family or friends move in with them, but they are restricted by landlords not allowing additional occupants. Removing these restrictions will support a decrease in homelessness.
58% of Black & 63% of Latinx households are renters in Oakland. This is a direct way to support communities of color being able to stay in Oakland.
I urge you to vote against the proposed changes to the TPO. Allowing tenants to add additional occupants will ultimately circumvent vacancy decontrol. A tenant planning to vacate could invite a friend to move in and add her to the lease. Then the outgoing tenant could go buy a house in another City and say she still lives in the apartment. Oakland has no requirement that the rent-controlled apartment be a primary residence and there really is no way to prove the outgoing tenant doesn't "live" there for part of the time. Even one weekend a year could be all they need. It's not hard to imagine a tenant who gets a new job in another city working a deal with her friend to let her move in and take over the rent-controlled apartment while she claims to still live there part time.
With no Primary Residency requirement so tenants can easily transfer their rent-controlled units to a friend and even sublet them for a profit to the additional person.
Imagine if you couldn’t control who was going to live in your home with you? Imagine not being able to determine the number of these people or have the ability to ask them to leave.
Sound good to you? To me it’s a nightmare.
The potential for here abuse is quite foreseeable.
Using COVID 19 as cover for onerous legislation is disgusting. How can this have even been drafted?
These ordinances are pushing small providers to the limits.
I am being forced to re-examine my intention to open up my large home which was my plan. This ordinance also forces me to re evaluate my boundaries with my existing tenants. Instead of the relaxed relationship I have
developed, I am now motivated to view them as potential adversaries.
These attacks on my personal place of residence are not being taken lightly. I want to ask the sane members of this council to think twice about this one! You are sowing discord between otherwise solid tenant owner relationships AND- you are losing housing as a result. Losing housing! If this passes I will do everything I can to get out of business in Oakland.
How can this be productive??
Hello, my name is Lian, and I am an Oakland renter. I urge you to pass strong upgrades to Oakland’s tenant protections! Now more than ever, it is imperative to protect tenants from abuse and harassment. We need to make sure the laws stop bad actors from displacing more tenants of color from Oakland. Please support the Tenant Protection Upgrade! Thank you!
I am an Oakland tenant. I would urge you to pass strong upgrades to Oakland's tenant protections on Monday. Now more than ever, it is imperative to protect tenants from abuse and harassment. We need to make sure the laws stop bad actors from displacing more tenants. However, I would request the following changes to the ordinance:
To be consistent with the recent passage by City Council of the “Fair Chance Ordinance,” ADD “the incarceration status of the tenant,” where not superseded by federal or state statutes."
Late Rent Payment Fee. In recognition of both state law and common practice, OTU proposes a uniform late fee of $25. 1% appears reasonable, and 3% is an excessive burden. OTU strongly urges a uniform late fee of $25 for all tenants.
To “Additional occupant,” ADD “adopted child” and “foster child” as standard occupants.
OTU suggests that no unnecessary burden is created on either party if the provision is reworded to state that “third-party rent payments received on behalf of a tenant does not create a claim to tenancy.”
Thank you.
I am a tenant in District 5 and I support these measures to protect tenants during this crisis. A moratorium is only worth so much if landlords can harass tenants out of their home. Big corporate landowners are buying up homes in Oakland and using loopholes in the original (very popular) tenant protection ordinance to push people (especially the elderly and disabled) out of their homes, like trumped up late fees and parking fees. With more and more Oaklanders losing housing or needing to move back in with friends and family, we also need these protections to make sure tenants can add new roommates to under-occupied units without fear of eviction. Noel Gallo, as my councilmember I am looking to you to take action now to protect the tenants in your district and keep Oakland healthy and housed! Otherwise, maybe we should be supporting someone else for City Council this November...
Agenda Item #3 – CED June 29, 2020, 1pm
OTU supports the City Attorney's recommendations, and request the following "tweaks" are needed to cover a few remaining gaps,
Please incorporate these recommendations into the final wording of the modifications to assist in establishing equity and fairness for both tenants and owners.
Items 1, 5, 7, 9, & 10 are especially significant.
1. Tenants Right to Privacy. To be consistent with the recent passage by City Council of the “Fair Chance Ordinance,” ADD “the incarceration status of the tenant,” where not superseded by federal or state statutes."
5. Late Rent Payment Fee. In recognition of both state law and common practice, OTU proposes a uniform late fee of $25. 1% appears reasonable, and 3% is an excessive burden. OTU strongly urges a uniform late fee of $25 for all tenants.
7. Definitions. To “Additional occupant,” ADD “adopted child” and “foster child” as standard occupants.
9. For Non-Profit Developers: ADD a new number “2,” to reflect the concern of non-profit housing developers whose developments are prohibited from adding occupants in units that receive federal subsidies.
10. Rent Payments by a 3rd Party: OTU suggests that no unnecessary burden is created on either party if the provision is reworded to state that “third-party rent payments received on behalf of a tenant does not create a claim to tenancy.”
Please refer all 10 OTU recommended to staff.
I am a tenant/counselor organizer here in Oakland and born and raised in Oakland/East Bay. I just want to bring to everyone’s attention the severity in tenant harassment cases on behalf of landlords at this time. Displacement and harassment have gone hand in hand for a long time now, but the ways in which landlords are rising to the occasion during this time of crisis is terrorizing. Tenants are having to choose between food and livelihood and rent, especially those who long before the crisis were already fighting to stay in Oakland, and I speak to that on a very personal level. I urge you to pass these amendments to take a step towards stabilizing our communities and keeping our working class Black and brown communities housed, safe, and healthy.
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of adding stronger tenant protections for Oakland renters. This is not about having "a bad roommate" or limiting small landlords' ability to chose their tenants. This is about ensuring that everyone in Oakland has access to safe and affordable housing and recognizing that landlords have unparalleled power to decide who has access to stable housing and for how long. To equate the limitation of property owners' ability to profit from an investment with the ability of people to find stable and affordable housing is inhumane and a gross demonstration of our society's constant prioritization of property over humans. Oakland must pass these protections to ensure that everyone can live a life of dignity and autonomy, not just property owners.
My name is Cherri Murphy.
Social Justice Minister.
Live in D5.
We need City Officials to make hope real in an economic crisis. The “Right to Recall” legislation would ensure laid-off workers right to return to their jobs as the crisis subsides prioritizing those who have given the most years of service.
My name is Kate raven and I am an Oakland homeowner and lawyer in district 5_. I urge you to pass strong upgrades to Oakland’s tenant protections on Monday. I also support Oakland worker's right to recall. Now more than ever, it is imperative to protect tenants from abuse and harassment. We need to make sure the laws stop bad actors from displacing more tenants of color from Oakland.
Hello. My name is Kimi Lee. I am an Oakland homeowner in district 6. I urge you to pass strong upgrades to Oakland’s tenant protections. I also support Oakland worker's right to recall. Now more than ever, it is imperative to protect tenants from abuse and harassment. We need to make sure the laws stop bad actors from displacing more tenants of color from Oakland.
As a long-time district 1 tenant/resident I strongly encourage you to pass these amendments to strengthen the Tenant Protection Ordinance. Homes are meant to shelter people, not generate wealth. We are in the midst of a housing crisis that will only be made worse due to the current pandemic. Please put protection of people before protection of hoarded wealth. The chasm between wealthy landowners and the unhoused grows greater everyday. We must do everything in our power to close that gap. Protect tenants and help stop the continued displacement of long-time Oakland residents.
Dear Councilmembers,
We oppose these monumental changes to the tenant/landlord relationship. My husband and I are seniors living in our duplex. Our tenants live in the upstairs unit. Losing the ability to select our tenants and the number of occupants living above us would be a crushing blow to us. Further, our long-term plan was to have a care-giver if/when needed move in upstairs. It is part of our safety net.
We urge you to protect equally Oakland small property landlords and not transfer the social problems we all are facing from tenants to small landlords.
Council and Committee members, landlords, tenants...yes, tenants too. Haven't we all had bad roommates in our pasts? Friend of a friend of a friend. You took a chance. You regretted it immediately. With this Ordinance Amendment, everyone loses except the bad roommate! You the tenant are affected as well as your landlord. Also, this "amendment" will make it SO easy for fraudulent types to work the system as usual, with no recourse to the landlord. Terrible, terrible idea.
Many families have come together during shelter in place. My own sister was fortunate enough to leave an abusive relationship with her children and move in with my parents. Many young people are moving back in with their parents and families are taking in their elders to protect & care for them. With unemployment skyrocketing, friends are moving in with friends, preserving affordable rent-controlled housing and stopping displacement. For many tenants, however, adding an additional occupant can mean an eviction. As families, chosen or bound by law or blood, endure and recover from this pandemic, they need to be able to live together without fear. I implore you, pass the tenant protection upgrades to help keep families in their homes.
Recognizing that many families, especially queer and families of color, my own included, are non-traditional, I ask that you remove the 5% additional occupancy fee. At minimum, please do not have it apply to anyone under the age of 18 in addition to foster, adopted or biological children of any age.
Please also cap rent fees at $25. A 3% late fee when the average rent is nearing 3k is absurd.
We need the strongest tenant protections possible in this moment. Please pass the upgrades in full with these amendments. Please also stand for Oakland workers and support the right to recall ordinance.
Oakland is already too limiting for everything, but to make it almost impossible for a small-time rental owner to make payments for mortgages, insurance, taxes (oh, let's not forget those!), interest and principal, in addition to maintenance, landscaping, utilities for common areas, garbage, water, and many other expenses tenants don't have to pay for but expect, the city's proposal for allowing additional non-paying tenants without owner/ landlord approval much less notice is unacceptable. It's unethical and borders on dictatorship. I heartily oppose the proposal of allowing additional tenants etc without prior approval by the landlord.
D6 homeowner and I strongly support these Tenant Protection Upgrades for my neighbors who have have be LONG terms tenants. Please support, vote yes here at CED and again at full council.
My name is Kari Napoli and I am a tenant and resident of District 1. I also work for a small business in District 1 that has been severely impacted by COVID. Tenants need support now more than ever. We, as tenants, are the small business owners and employees, we are the social workers, the teachers, the nurses, the bus drivers. WE serve our community with our work, our tax dollars, and our mutual aid. WE would be a massive loss for Oakland. Support the workers!
I am an Oakland tenant. I'm in support of these increased tenant protections. Before coronavirus/COVID-19, there was already a housing crisis. There are tenants willing to have family or friends move in with them, but they are restricted by landlords not allowing additional occupants. Removing these restrictions will support a decrease in homelessness.
58% of Black & 63% of Latinx households are renters in Oakland. This is a direct way to support communities of color being able to stay in Oakland.
I urge you to vote against the proposed changes to the TPO. Allowing tenants to add additional occupants will ultimately circumvent vacancy decontrol. A tenant planning to vacate could invite a friend to move in and add her to the lease. Then the outgoing tenant could go buy a house in another City and say she still lives in the apartment. Oakland has no requirement that the rent-controlled apartment be a primary residence and there really is no way to prove the outgoing tenant doesn't "live" there for part of the time. Even one weekend a year could be all they need. It's not hard to imagine a tenant who gets a new job in another city working a deal with her friend to let her move in and take over the rent-controlled apartment while she claims to still live there part time.
With no Primary Residency requirement so tenants can easily transfer their rent-controlled units to a friend and even sublet them for a profit to the additional person.
D6 resident, and a landlord. Please vote yes.
Imagine if you couldn’t control who was going to live in your home with you? Imagine not being able to determine the number of these people or have the ability to ask them to leave.
Sound good to you? To me it’s a nightmare.
The potential for here abuse is quite foreseeable.
Using COVID 19 as cover for onerous legislation is disgusting. How can this have even been drafted?
These ordinances are pushing small providers to the limits.
I am being forced to re-examine my intention to open up my large home which was my plan. This ordinance also forces me to re evaluate my boundaries with my existing tenants. Instead of the relaxed relationship I have
developed, I am now motivated to view them as potential adversaries.
These attacks on my personal place of residence are not being taken lightly. I want to ask the sane members of this council to think twice about this one! You are sowing discord between otherwise solid tenant owner relationships AND- you are losing housing as a result. Losing housing! If this passes I will do everything I can to get out of business in Oakland.
How can this be productive??
Hello, my name is Lian, and I am an Oakland renter. I urge you to pass strong upgrades to Oakland’s tenant protections! Now more than ever, it is imperative to protect tenants from abuse and harassment. We need to make sure the laws stop bad actors from displacing more tenants of color from Oakland. Please support the Tenant Protection Upgrade! Thank you!